


Thoughts on Sam and addiction

by amonitrate



Category: Supernatural
Genre: Addiction, Assault, Demon Blood Addiction, Gaslighting, Gen, Meta, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder - PTSD, Season/Series 04, Season/Series 05, Strangulation
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2018-05-06
Updated: 2018-05-06
Packaged: 2019-05-03 05:35:03
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 2
Words: 3,391
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/14561985
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/amonitrate/pseuds/amonitrate
Summary: The generally accepted idea in fandom is that Sam’s blood addiction was the tragic result of his heroic sacrifice of his humanity in order to kill Lilith and save the world; but I think this is only looking at it through Sam’s POV.





	1. Chapter 1

**Author's Note:**

> originally posted to tumblr in 2016

I want to talk about a few things that came up in recent conversations about seasons 4 and 5. I’ve given a lot of thought to whether it would be a good idea to continue those specific conversations and decided I’m going to generalize rather than respond directly. These are pretty widely held ideas in fandom.

One pattern I’ve noticed over the years is a tendency to minimize the impact of Sam’s actions on Dean and Dean’s pain when discussing season 4 and season 5, in order to escape holding Sam fully responsible for his behavior. This was one of the driving reasons behind writing my meta series in the first place. Needless to say, the way canon handled these events sets the stage for this stuff, and that’s been my primary focus.

I’ve found that it’s inevitable that when I get into conversations about the events of these seasons in wider fandom what Sam did in general and more specifically what he did to Dean is either blatantly or subtly minimized or rationalized away. If what he did is acknowledged as negative at all, it is immediately defended as necessary and unavoidable, or as not his fault due to manipulation, or because he was reacting to someone else and he couldn’t help himself, or commonplace, or comparatively not that bad. Very rarely will someone just flat out hold Sam responsible for what he did without undercutting that in some manner.

This fandom has been arguing about whether or not Sam can be held responsible for Lucifer’s release for eight years, so I won’t beat that dead horse. What I want to talk about are some things that I haven’t seen discussed as much.

I’m going to break up the topics I want to cover, where there might be new insights, into a series of posts to follow. I guess this is kind of a supplement to my larger meta.

* * *

 

The generally accepted idea in fandom is that Sam’s blood addiction was the tragic result of his heroic sacrifice of his humanity in order to kill Lilith and save the world; but I think this is only looking at it through Sam’s POV.

If Sam’s story about how he started working with Ruby is to be believed, his use of demon blood most likely began during a traumatic period. Seeing Dean die in front of him would be trauma enough to fuel a need for self-medication. He’s shown drinking himself into a stupor with alcohol in the flashbacks in 4.09 when Ruby finds him. So why wouldn’t the blood be serving the same purpose?

The demon blood was described as making Sam feel strong, in control, powerful, etc. in a situation where anyone would feel weak and scared.

Sam’s initial revenge quest against Lilith can also be seen as self-medication, as a coping mechanism, the way it was for John after Mary’s death and Sam himself after Jessica’s. Now add in an addictive substance, and I think we have a case for the demon blood providing self-medication.

Assuming the demon blood *wasn’t* a means of self-medication minimizes Sam’s trauma after Dean’s death. Because Sam’s experience fits with why most people end up tangled in an addiction: medicating a very real pain, in a situation where he doesn’t have many options for getting help.

* * *

 

There’s also the idea that Sam doesn’t behave much like an addict, which I think is a function both of deliberate choices from the narrative and a failure to take seriously how Sam treats Dean, a minimizing of his actions towards Dean.

For example, Sam doesn’t have to steal from the people around him because his drug of choice is blood and Ruby keeps him well supplied. Sam doesn’t have to steal for money to get his fix because Ruby gives it to him for free. Then later when she tells him he needs more than she can give him (which could be seen as the result of a building tolerance) he’s willing to murder a woman to get what he needs.

The only reason Sam is spared the typical relapse/recovery story in season 5, in the aftermath of consuming so much blood that his eyes went black and he was supposedly permanently changed (which could be seen as the demon blood equivalent of an overdose), is due to the deus-ex-machina narrative manipulation where Sam’s addiction is magicked away in the first episode so that TPTB doesn’t have to deal with the fallout of their own writing. I wrote more about this and about the narrative manipulations around demon blood and addiction in 5.03 in my larger meta on the season.

Sam’s sole relapse, in 5.13 “My Bloody Valentine,” also fits into my wider meta thesis about how the narrative manipulates Sam’s “redemption” arc in season 5. Sam only relapses in a situation where literally everyone in a town succumbs to temptation due to a supernatural influence. In other words: Sam is robbed of any agency in the relapse – he can’t help it. He also doesn’t hunt down anyone for his substance but kills for blood only after demons come for him, and then uses the power the blood gives him to save the day from the big bad.

So even when Sam “relapses” (which is completely normal and to be expected when an addict is getting sober) it’s manipulatively framed by the narrative as heroic. The idea of Sam as a heroic addict doesn’t come out of nowhere; it’s deliberately suggested by the show for a specific purpose. In other words, there’s a reason we’re never shown Sam relapsing again, and a reason he manages to get clean off screen at the end of the episode.  
  
It’s to restore his heroic image as quickly as possible, without all the messiness that comes with getting sober and facing the fallout from his addiction. Sam is never shown struggling with temptation or relapse again, because it doesn’t fit the season’s intended heroic redemption arc. Unless you count “Swan Song” as a meticulously rationalized relapse, and I think you can easily make that argument; but that’s clearly not the show’s intention.

By making these choices, the show rejected an opportunity to show a different kind of heroic redemption arc for Sam in s5, one that a lot of people might have been able to relate to. Because addiction itself is not shameful; the problem is it’s not so easily divorced from the abusive behavior many people exhibit while in the grips of addiction.

* * *

 

The argument that Sam’s lies and gaslighting of Dean were minor is something else I want to talk about.

People who lie extensively often think the person they’re lying to is oblivious, that it’s a victimless crime – what they don’t know won’t hurt them. But extensive lying over the course of a year is extremely damaging to the person being lied to, because it creates an atmosphere of distrust and ruins the ability to trust that the liar is telling the truth about *anything.*

Lies ruin relationships.

This is even more the case when the person lied to has just escaped the extreme trauma of torture and captivity. Trust is vitally important to recently traumatized people and people with cPTSD. So to be immersed in an environment of constant lying from someone important to Dean’s support system post-Hell is *retraumatizing* for him. Especially given the matters Sam is lying about are obviously connected to a demon – Ruby – and his own demon-bestowed powers.

Look at this exchange, from 4.15:

> DEAN  
>  And what the hell happened with Alastair again?
> 
> SAM  
>  I told you, he tried to fling me or whatever. And it didn’t work, so he bailed.
> 
> DEAN  
>  Well, how come he couldn’t fling you? He chucked you pretty good last time.
> 
> SAM turns to face DEAN and pauses before answering.
> 
> SAM  
>  Got no idea.
> 
> SAM turns back to the coffeemaker, then back to DEAN when DEAN starts speaking.
> 
> DEAN  
>  Sam, do me a favor. If you’re gonna keep your little secrets, I can’t really stop you, but just don’t treat me like an idiot, okay?
> 
> SAM  
>  What? Dean, I’m not keeping secrets.

This is not just lying, it’s gaslighting. Dean points out that he knows Sam is lying to him, and Sam denies it in a way that deliberately implies that Dean is making shit up or is just paranoid. And that’s damaging to anyone, but to a survivor of extreme trauma? It’s devastating.

And Sam is lying about what happened with Dean’s torturer at the scene of a subsequent near-fatal attack on Dean, which is even worse.

Sam can’t tell Dean the truth there because the truth is that Alastair couldn’t affect Sam because of the demon blood. Sam has to lie to Dean, has to gaslight Dean, because he’s hiding his addiction. This is a pattern in season 4.

Later, in 4.18, he lies by omission:

 

> SAM  
>  You think I’ll do it, don’t you? You think I’ll go dark side.
> 
> DEAN  
>  Yes! Okay? Yes. The way you’ve been acting lately? The things you’ve been doing?  
>  (SAM looks up, startled.)  
>  Oh, I know. How you ripped Alastair apart like it was nothing, like you were swatting a fly. Cas told me, okay?
> 
> SAM  
>  What else did he tell you?
> 
> DEAN  
>  Nothing I don’t already know. That you’ve been using your psychic crap, and you’ve been getting stronger. We just don’t know why, and we don’t know how.
> 
> SAM  
>  It’s not what you think.
> 
> DEAN  
>  Then what is it, Sam? ‘Cause I’m at a total loss.

Sam panics because he thinks Dean knows about the demon blood, then carefully questions Dean to find out if Cas told him about it. Then when it’s clear Cas doesn’t know and couldn’t have told Dean anything of import, Sam insists “It’s not what you think” but doesn’t fill in the blanks. He allows Dean to be left hanging about something that is obviously happening and gives no answer because he can’t do so without revealing the horror of drinking blood. He again implicitly paints Dean as paranoid and overreacting to something he *knows* is horrifying.

This kind of careful feeling out to see how much the person you’re lying to knows, and then adjusting your reaction to suit, is also very damaging to the person lied to.

Because people pick up on this stuff, if only subconsciously. It contributes to the general atmosphere of distrust. Manipulative liars don’t seem to realize it (or maybe they just don’t care), but especially if someone knows them well and for a long time, their lies are obvious. The only thing they’re hiding is what exactly they’re lying about, not the fact of the lie. And lies of omission can be just as trust-destroying as overt lies and gaslighting. It all works together to create a dangerous environment where the one lied to starts to question their own reality and sanity, even if the liar isn’t overtly gaslighting.

Again, in this scene Sam is deceiving Dean to avoid being confronted with his actions and with the fact of his addiction. And again, it’s at least in part about what happened when Alastair nearly killed Dean, and about Sam using his powers – two demon and hell related topics. Because Sam’s powers? Are exactly like the kinds of powers demons, including Alastair, use on humans. Used on Dean. In Hell.

These two primary examples of Dean explicitly confronting Sam about what he’s doing, why he’s lying, are intimately related to Dean’s experience in hell and his near-death experience with his torturer in “On the Head of a Pin.”

This wasn’t just a matter of a little lying, a little gaslighting, no big deal. It’s compounding Dean’s very recent trauma, both from hell and around Alastair’s attack on him in “On the Head of a Pin.”


	2. Chapter 2

 

The last topic I want to explore in this post is the idea that Sam doesn’t act like an addict by going on the offensive, doesn’t go after Dean about Hell, doesn’t find a weak spot and push. That Sam calling Dean weak in s4 was not a big deal.

Sam calling Dean weak in the way he does in the context of s4? Is literally using Dean’s trauma against him, even when Sam frames it in a concerned way.

Contrary to his fanon reputation, Sam does in fact frequently go on the offensive with Dean, and like the scenes detailed above, in season 4 it’s a deliberate strike against Dean getting too close to Sam’s web of lies and what he’s hiding, namely his blood addiction. And he uses Dean’s hell trauma to do it.

Look at this scene in 4.09 when Dean (justifiably) asks why he should trust Ruby. Sam can’t tell Dean about what he’s really been doing with Ruby and he needs to end that conversation quickly so he lashes out about Dean’s time in hell:

> SAM  
>  You’re not pissed we’re going after the girl. You’re pissed Ruby threw us the tip.
> 
> DEAN  
>  Right. ‘Cause as far as you’re concerned, the hell-bitch is practically family. Yeah, boy, something major must’ve happened while I downstairs, 'cause I come back, and – and you’re BFF with a demon?
> 
> SAM  
>  I told you, Dean, she helped me go after Lilith.
> 
> DEAN  
>  Well, thanks for the thumbnail – real vivid. You want to fill in a little detail?
> 
> SAM  
>  Sure, Dean, let’s trade stories. You first. How was Hell? Don’t spare the details.

Here he’s deliberately using Dean’s trauma and Dean’s unwillingness or inability to talk about it against Dean to shut down a completely valid line of questioning, because this line of questioning might lead to Sam accidentally revealing his blood drinking. It’s emotionally blackmailing a trauma survivor, insisting that he dredge up his torture for Sam before Sam will give him any reason to trust *a demon.* As if those two things are equivalent.

This tactic gives Sam time to come up with a carefully edited story for Dean. Which is what happens later in the episode, when Sam tells Dean the emotional tale of what happened after Dean died, but just happens to leave out the bits about drinking Ruby’s blood.

And as [@juppschmitz](https://tmblr.co/mAKTW9tcK1QLrInIfEVL3cA) pointed out recently, this isn’t just Sam throwing Dean’s hell experience in his face to get him to shut up; it’s implying that Dean did something worse than Sam is doing, therefore has no right to question him at all.

Because Sam’s reference to hell is following on the tails of a comment Uriel made to him two episodes prior, in “Great Pumpkin.” In that scene, Sam confronts Uriel about heaven’s intention to destroy a town “for the greater good.” Note that this scene also takes place in the context of someone confronting Sam about his powers. The link here is made between the powers and using Dean’s hell experience offensively. Uriel gives Sam a template that he’ll use later against Dean. 

> URIEL:  
>  You were told not to use your abilities.
> 
> SAM:  
>  And what was I supposed to do? That demon would have killed me, and my brother and everyone.
> 
> URIEL:  
>  You were told not to.
> 
> SAM:  
>  If Samhain had gotten loose in this town –
> 
> URIEL:  
>  You’ve been warned, twice now.
> 
> SAM:  
>  You know? My brother was right about you, you are dicks.
> 
> URIEL:  
>  The only reason you’re still alive, Sam Winchester, is because you’ve been useful. But the moment that ceases to be true, the second you become more trouble than you’re worth, one word. One, and I will turn you to dust. As for your brother, tell him that maybe he should climb off that high horse of his. Ask Dean what he remembers from hell.

With the “high horse” comment, Uriel implies that Dean doesn’t have a right to call the angels dicks because of something that happened in hell. Given that the angels were willing to destroy an entire town, this implicates Dean in doing something at least that awful.

So when Dean confronts Sam about trusting Ruby, Sam lashes out with his comment about hell. He gives himself away, because Dean’s question is not really an accusation – he wants a good reason to trust Ruby, he’s asking for proof she’s trustworthy. Something he has every right to given their general experience with demons, but especially given he’s just escaped an eternity of torture by demons in hell.

Dean saying “something must have happened while I was downstairs” triggers Sam’s ugly offensive maneuver, going after Dean about hell, finding Dean’s weak spot and pushing, because… something *did* happen when Dean was gone, something Sam wants to hide from Dean. Sam sees what Dean said as an accusation because of his guilty conscience, knowing he’s already extensively lied to Dean about something he knows Dean would rightly recoil from in horror.

Because drinking blood is horrifying.

So Sam throws hell in Dean’s face to imply that Dean’s done something at least as bad as the thing Sam knows he’s hiding. Dean’s done something bad enough Uriel would bring it up as justification for Dean getting off his “high horse” about the angels slaughtering an entire town. Therefore Dean has no right to question Sam about Ruby at all.

What Sam does here is go after Dean. Go after Dean’s weak spot, his trauma, and push. When Sam calls Dean weak, when Sam lashes out at Dean about hell, that is what he’s doing.

Disregarding all of this is the only way Sam can be described as a heroic addict.

* * *

I have to admit to utter confusion at the idea that Sam is a “saintly addict.”

Yeah, he lies extensively to Dean. He gaslights Dean and emotionally manipulates him. He calls him weak.

While in his downward spiral of blood addiction, Sam also:

–assaulted Bobby with the butt of a rifle, knocking him out.

–lashed out violently, punching Dean when confronted with what he was doing (Deans attempt at an intervention).

–**strangled** Dean after beating him when Dean fights back. Strangulation is serious and even if not strangled to the point of death can still lead to death later and other serious physical effects, not to mention the psychological trauma. Strangulation is attempted murder.

–kidnapped a possession victim and tortured her. When he knows first hand the horror of possession and had the ability to exorcise the demon and free her.

–ordered Ruby to murder her so he could drink her blood.

–released Lucifer.

So I’m pretty puzzled at what a non-saintly addict would look like, if this was a saintly/heroic one.

Sam is in fact a manipulative asshole in season 4 and season 5, exactly in the fashion that abusive addicts are manipulative assholes. There are other relevant scenes in season 4 if you want to find them. The only way to avoid seeing this is by viewing the seasons through Sam’s narrow perspective.

If you’re familiar with Al-Anon and AA terminology, we could argue that Sam is a “dry drunk” in season 5, because his behavior fits the bill. I didn’t get into that in the meta, because I think the concept has a lot of problems. But it is one way to describe what’s going on, especially by the time of “Fallen Idols” when Sam is pushing all the responsibility for his own behavior off onto Dean. Sam might have (magically) gotten sober, but he continues all of the manipulative and emotionally abusive behavior he exhibited while in the grips of his addiction. My meta details Sam’s manipulation further so I won’t repeat it here.

Sam the addict was most certainly mean in exactly the way abusive addicts are mean. Only not taking Dean’s pain seriously and minimizing Sam’s actions by viewing them solely through Sam’s POV allows anyone to say that he wasn’t.

So to conclude, SPN most definitely went full addict route with Sam in season 4 and Sam was only spared full addict route in season 5 because of explicit narrative manipulations like the addiction being magicked away. The only person this helps is Sam, because it’s there to rehabilitate his character after season 4 without having to put in any work, such as an actual honest recovery process.

Sam is spared all that, after strangling Dean under the influence of blood. This is the core of my long meta project.


End file.
